DOCSLIB.ORG

Sepa Environmental Checklist

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sepa Environmental Checklist Project: Terminal 7 Site Redevelopment and Stormwater Conveyance Improvements Applicant: Port of Port Angeles SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. Background [help] Note: Blue underlined text is revised language in response to mitigation conditions requested by the City of Port Angeles and per comments on the Shoreline Permit Application received from the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: [help] Terminal 7 Site Redevelopment and Stormwater Conveyance Improvements 2. Name of applicant: [help] Port of Port Angeles 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: [help] 338 W. First Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 360-417-3452 Contact: Jesse Waknitz / Environmental Manager 4. Date checklist prepared: [help] 3/9/2017 6/29/2017 – Checklist Revised 5. Agency requesting checklist: [help] Port of Port Angeles (Port) & City of Port Angeles 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): [help] Summer/Fall 2017 - Phase 1: Construction of stormwater conveyance and grading at the Port Terminal 7 Log Yard. This SEPA checklist is for Phase 1only. Summer/Fall 2018 – Phase 2: Installation of stormwater treatment at the Port Terminal 7 Log Yard. Phase 2 will undergo individualized SEPA review as soon as the “principle features of a proposal and its environmental impacts can be reasonably identified… and the environmental effects can be meaningfully evaluated.” (WAC 197-11-055) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. [help] Summer/Fall 2018 – Phase 2: Installation of stormwater treatment and associated stormwater conveyance at the Port Log Yard. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. [help] SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 6/29/2017 Page 1 of 22 Project: Terminal 7 Site Redevelopment and Stormwater Conveyance Improvements Applicant: Port of Port Angeles The proposed stormwater improvements will be designed and constructed to meet the conditions and per the guidance detailed in the following documents: 1. Industrial Stormwater General Permit (ISGP) NPDES, State of Washington Department of Ecology, December 3, 2014. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/Programs/wq/stormwater/industrial/index.html 2. Washington State Marine Terminal AKART and ISGP Corrective Action Guidance Manual, Washington Public Ports Association, December 2014. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/industrial/2014Dec.WAStateMarineTerminalCorrectiveAc tionGuideManual.WPPA.pdf 3. Administrative Order 12801, State of Washington Department of Ecology, August 3, 2015. Included as Attachment 1. 4. Waterfront Stormwater Improvements Final Engineering Report, Port of Port Angeles, December 30, 2016. Included as Attachment 2. 5. Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Plan for the Terminal 7 Site Redevelopment and Stormwater Conveyance Improvements Project, Clallam County, Washington, June 27, 2017. Included as Attachement 3. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. [help] None Known 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. [help] City of Port Angeles Building/Clearing & Grading Permit City of Port Angeles Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Washington State Department of Ecology Construction Stormwater General Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) [help] The Port proposes to install a stormwater treatment system at the Port Terminal 7 Log Yard (Site). The goal of proposed treatment system is to meet the permit benchmarks values established under the Industrial Stormwater General Permit (ISGP) administered by the Washington Department of Ecology (ECY). The first phase for the implementation of a treatment system is the construction of an improved stormwater conveyance system to direct runoff to a single outfall. Stormwater from the Site currently discharges to Port Angeles Harbor via multiple catch basins with approximately eight corresponding outfalls. Specific project elements included under this Phase 1 project (See attached Figures 2a & 2B): SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 6/29/2017 Page 2 of 22 Project: Terminal 7 Site Redevelopment and Stormwater Conveyance Improvements Applicant: Port of Port Angeles Abandonment of existing catch basins. and outfalls. Regrade Site so that overland flow conveys stormwater runoff to proposed lift station. The proposed regrading of the site will be an approximate 1 foot reshape of exiting surface contours across the 10-acre site with an estimated 3,000 cubic yards of fill and 4,000 cubic yard of export. Install settling vault, lift station/valve vault, settling vault, above ground equalization tank manhole and approximately 3,000 1,100 feet of pressure main pipe to convey stormwater to future treatment area to proposed lift station. (Treatment will be designed and constructed under Phase 2). Pipe to be 18” to 20” in diameter ductile iron, installed to depths of 18” to 48” below final surface grade. Pipes to be 8” to 24” diameter, PVC, installed to a depth of 4’ below the ground surface. Utilize existing Outfall 1, located at approximately Lat 48.131319 & Long -123.460804, for point of discharge for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this project. In the interim, prior to the completion of Phase 2, discharge stormwater to existing City of Port Angeles storm drain and to existing Port Outfall-7. Following the construction of Phase 1 listed above the Port will conduct bench and pilot testing utilizing stormwater collected at or near Outfall 1 to aid in the final design of a treatment system. Outfall-7 and/or just prior to City storm drain line to aid in the final design of a treatment system. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. [help] The project will occur at the Port Terminal 7 Log Yard located at 1433 Marine Drive, Port Angeles, WA 98363 in Township 30 N, Range 6 West, Section 4, Clallam County. See attached Figures 1 and 2 for an overview of the project location and existing conditions. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS [help] 1. Earth [help] a. General description of the site: [help] (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____________ Heavily modified industrial shoreline. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? [help] The steepest slopes in the project area occur along the armored shoreline bank. The slopes vary but are generally inclined at about 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 6/29/2017 Page 3 of 22 Project: Terminal 7 Site Redevelopment and Stormwater Conveyance Improvements Applicant: Port of Port Angeles c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. [help] The soils at the site are mapped as “Beaches” on the USDA Web Soil Survey (https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm ). From previous excavation and geotechnical work at the Site the soils/fill are known to consist of beach and tideland deposits overlain by 4’ to 12’ of fill material consisting of dredge fill sand, pit run, and industrial debris consisting of concrete debris and wood debris. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. [help] No indications or history of unstable soil are known in the immediate vicinity of the project. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. [help] Approximately 27,000 cy 4,000 of upland soil will be excavated and 5,000 3,000 cy of clean fill will be placed to regrade approximately 12 10 acres of the site. See attached Figure 2. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. [help] No, during construction the appropriate BMPs per the 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) will be implemented. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? [help] The existing Site consists of 100% of impervious surfaces with a combination of heavily compacted quarry spalls/crushed rock, asphalt paving, concrete slab, and elevated concrete slab. The proposed project will repave an area of currently impervious surface (combo of above mentioned surfacing) with approximately 85,000 square feet of asphalt paving. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: [help] No, during construction the appropriate BMPs per the 2012 SWMMWW will be implemented. 2. Air [help] a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2016 State of Our Watersheds Report West WRIA 18 – Morse Creek to Elwha River
    2016 State of Our Watersheds Report West WRIA 18 – Morse Creek to Elwha River am removal seemed like an elusive Dtarget over the years and many citizens were skeptical of the benefits. However in just four years the river has transported over 60% of the stored sediment, resulting in a rebirth of the estuary and the floodplain. Salmon are ascending to historic habitats and the recovery of the ecosystem is about to blossom. -MIkE MCHENrY FIsHErIEs HABItAt MANAGEr Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe is part of the Klal- lam Band of Indians that have resided throughout the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal and Port Gamble Bay for generations. They are party to the Point No Point Treaty of 1855, when tribes ceded most their traditional lands to the U.S. government. The Dunge- ness-Elwha Basin (WRIA 18) has remained largely Seattle rural and forested with a natural resources-based economy focused on shellfish harvesting, commercial forestry, commercial fisheries, tourism, and agricul- ture. Major land-use impacts on salmon habitat have occurred from floodplain and shoreline development, road construction and past logging practices. This report will focus on the northwest portion of WRIA 18 basin and surrounding marine waters, which is only a portion of the area that the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe co-manages. 58 Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Elwha Basin The Area of Concern for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe (Elwha shoreline habitat conditions. Both internal and outside reviews Tribe) is the western portion of WRIA 18, from the Elwha River have concluded that recovery efforts are behind the expected pace watershed to Morse Creek, east of Port Angeles.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Qualifications Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project
    Submitted by: Kiewit Pacific Co. Statement of Qualifications Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Specification No. PW10-0128F Submitted to: Purchasing Office, Tacoma Public Utilities 3628 South 35th Street, Tacoma, WA 98409 June 8, 2010 Tab No. 1 - General Company Information & Team Structure Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Project TAB NO.1 - GENERAL COMPANY INFORMATION AND TEAM STRUCTURE Kiewit Pacific Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kiewit Infrastructure Group, Inc., will be the contracting party for this project, as indicated on Forms 3 and 4 in Tab No. 4 - Appendix C. As a wholly-owned subsidiary, none of the officers of Kiewit Pacific Co. (Kiewit) own stock. Incorporated on May 18, 1982, we can trace our history back to 1884, when Peter and Andrew Kiewit formed Kiewit Brothers, an Omaha masonry contracting partnership. Today, we are part of one of North America's largest and most respected construction and mining organizations. We take our place in the corporate structure of our parent company, Kiewit Infrastructure Group Inc., alongside Kiewit Construction Company and Kiewit Southern Co. Our affiliates and subsidiaries, as well as those of our parent company, operate from a network of offices throughout North America. We draw upon the Kiewit Corporation’s collective experience and personnel to assemble the strongest team possible for a given project. Therefore, work experience of such affiliates and subsidiaries is relevant in demonstrating our capabilities. For the Murray Morgan Bridge, we are supplementing our local talent with extensive moveable bridge expertise from our east coast operations, Kiewit Constructors, Inc. We are also utilizing our local subsidiary, General Construction Company (General), for mechanical and electrical expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • Hood Canal Bridge Assessment Is a Floating Bridge Impacting the Hood Canal Ecosystem?
    Hood Canal Bridge Assessment Is a Floating Bridge Impacting the Hood Canal Ecosystem? Purpose: The Hood Canal Bridge Ecosystem Impact Assessment will pinpoint the causes of high fish Project Duration mortality at the bridge and determine whether the bridge is lowering water quality in a 2016 2018 priority water body of Washington State. Solutions that do not substantially impact the bridge Phase 1 will then be identified and tested. Context: Estimated Total Coined “the wild side of Washington”, Project Cost many tourists and locals go to Hood $2.4 Million Canal to experience nature. However, vital elements of Hood Canal’s natural ecosystem are at risk. Wild salmon — including Chinook, chum, and Funds Raised steelhead — are listed as threatened To Date under the Endangered Species Act. Low $800,000 dissolved oxygen events periodically kill fish and ocean acidification threatens commercially important Project Status shellfish beds. Research Underway The Hood Canal Bridge carries State Route 104 across the northern outlet of Hood Canal, connecting the Olympic and Kitsap peninsulas. As a floating bridge, its pontoons span 83% of the width of Hood Canal and extend 15 feet into the upper water layer. Recent studies show higher mortality of juvenile steelhead Project Partners as they migrate past the bridge. Research also suggests that the bridge may disrupt water Hood Canal Coordinating circulation for all of Hood Canal, potentially increasing water temperatures, lowering dissolved Council oxygen levels and exacerbating the effects of ocean acidification and climate change. This dual Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe threat to migrating fish and their local marine ecosystem may be limiting the effectiveness of Washington Department of millions already spent recovering steelhead, salmon and their habitat in Hood Canal.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 13 -- Puget Sound, Washington
    514 Puget Sound, Washington Volume 7 WK50/2011 123° 122°30' 18428 SKAGIT BAY STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA S A R A T O 18423 G A D A M DUNGENESS BAY I P 18464 R A A L S T S Y A G Port Townsend I E N L E T 18443 SEQUIM BAY 18473 DISCOVERY BAY 48° 48° 18471 D Everett N U O S 18444 N O I S S E S S O P 18458 18446 Y 18477 A 18447 B B L O A B K A Seattle W E D W A S H I N ELLIOTT BAY G 18445 T O L Bremerton Port Orchard N A N 18450 A 18452 C 47° 47° 30' 18449 30' D O O E A H S 18476 T P 18474 A S S A G E T E L N 18453 I E S C COMMENCEMENT BAY A A C R R I N L E Shelton T Tacoma 18457 Puyallup BUDD INLET Olympia 47° 18456 47° General Index of Chart Coverage in Chapter 13 (see catalog for complete coverage) 123° 122°30' WK50/2011 Chapter 13 Puget Sound, Washington 515 Puget Sound, Washington (1) This chapter describes Puget Sound and its nu- (6) Other services offered by the Marine Exchange in- merous inlets, bays, and passages, and the waters of clude a daily newsletter about future marine traffic in Hood Canal, Lake Union, and Lake Washington. Also the Puget Sound area, communication services, and a discussed are the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and variety of coordinative and statistical information.
    [Show full text]
  • SR 104/SR 307: West Access to WSF (Kingston Ferry Terminal) the 15-Mile Long Corridor in Kitsap County Is Comprised of Two Segments Which Converge, Forming a Wye
    Corridor Sketch Summary Printed at: 12:18 PM 10/29/2018 WSDOT's Corridor Sketch Initiative is a collaborative planning process with agency partners to identify performance gaps and select high-level strategies to address them on the 304 corridors statewide. This Corridor Sketch Summary acts as an executive summary for one corridor. Please review the User Guide for Corridor Sketch Summaries prior to using information on this corridor: SR 104/SR 307: West Access to WSF (Kingston Ferry Terminal) The 15-mile long corridor in Kitsap County is comprised of two segments which converge, forming a wye. The first segment runs along State Route 104 travelling between the SR 104/SR 3 intersection, located immediately east of the Hood Canal Bridge, and the holding area for the Kingston Ferry Terminal. The second segment runs along SR 307 running between Poulsbo at the SR 305 junction and the SR 104 intersection. Additionally, there is a .3-mile couplet in Kingston. The character of the corridor is primarily rural with some large lot homes and residential developments scattered throughout. The area along the corridor is primarily undeveloped with a significant amount of forested area. The eastern and western ends of the corridor, near Kingston and Poulsbo respectively, are more urban in character with small concentrations of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The corridor passes through rolling terrain and forested land. Current Function SR 104 runs east-west connecting the eastern Olympic Peninsula, Kitsap Peninsula, and central Puget Sound region and includes the Kingston-Edmonds Ferry Route. SR 307 travels within Kitsap County, providing a direct connection between Poulsbo and SR 104.
    [Show full text]
  • 9. Transportation Appendix
    TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION APPENDIX I. TRANSPORTATION INVENTORY This section of the transportation element summarizes the existing transportation facilities and services currently in use in the unincorporated portions of Kitsap County. The inventory includes a variety of multimodal facilities and describes all travel modes used in the County for mobility. A. Public Highways, Arterials, and Roadways The Kitsap County peninsula is surrounded by water on three sides, and is connected to the mainland at the southern end of the county. The two main routes into Kitsap County from the south are SR 16, from Pierce County, and SR 3 from Mason County. SR 16 connects Kitsap County to Pierce County, including the City of Tacoma, via the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge also provides access to all points east of Puget Sound. In contrast, SR 3 leads to rural Mason County and to the Olympic Peninsula. Figure TR-1, in Part III, Fold Out Figures, of the Comprehensive Plan, indicates the major travel corridors in Kitsap County including both state routes and county/city routes. There are three main bridges serving Kitsap County: Tacoma Narrows (SR 16), Agate Pass (SR 305), and Hood Canal (SR 104). Access to the Olympic Peninsula from the northern half of the county is near Port Gamble via the Hood Canal Bridge, which crosses the Hood Canal into Jefferson County. All other access points to Kitsap County are by ferry on the eastern side of the County. These points include Bremerton and Bainbridge in central Kitsap; Southworth in south Kitsap; and Kingston in the north.
    [Show full text]
  • Hood Canal Bridge Ecosystem Impact Assessment Plan: Framework and Phase 1 Details FINAL – September 27, 2016
    Hood Canal Bridge Ecosystem Impact Assessment Plan: Framework and Phase 1 Details FINAL – September 27, 2016 Prepared by: Hood Canal Bridge Assessment Team and contributing experts (see reverse) Cite document as: Hood Canal Bridge Assessment Team. 2016. Hood Canal Bridge Ecosystem Impact Assessment Plan: Framework and Phase 1 Details. Long Live the Kings, Seattle, WA. Bridge Assessment Team Megan Moore, NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center* Tarang Khangaonkar, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory* Barry Berejikian, NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center* Hans Daubenberger, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe* Steve Jeffries, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife* Paul McCollum, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Erik Neatherlin, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Scott Pearson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife* Chris Harvey, NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center* Austen Thomas, Smith-Root* Carl Ward, Washington Department of Transportation John Wynands, Washington Department of Transportation Contributors Kevin Redman, RPS Evans Hamilton Daniel Deng, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Tim Essington, University of Washington Monique Lance, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Marshal Richmond, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Julie Keister, University of Washington Ken Warheit, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Coordinators Michael Schmidt, Long Live the Kings+ Iris Kemp, Long Live the Kings Susan O’Neil, Long Live the Kings Lucas Hall, Long Live the Kings *Principals +Project Manager and Lead. For
    [Show full text]
  • Closure Mitigation Folio Replacement Project WSDOT Has Updated the Closure Mitigation Budget Into 2009 Dollars
    May 2008 CLOSURE MITIGATION BUDGET The Hood Canal Bridge project began in October 1997. At that time, the cost estimated for Hood Canal Bridge May 2008 the closure mitigation portion of the work was $10 million. Retrofit and East-half Closure Mitigation Folio Replacement Project WSDOT has updated the Closure Mitigation Budget into 2009 dollars. The closure mitigation Hood Canal Bridge Retrofit and East Half Replacement Project budget reflects current costs spent from November 2005 through today and projected East-half Replacement expenditures through the May-June 2009 bridge closure and replacement. Completion Goal: 2009 The Hood Canal Bridge is an economic lifeline for the people and West-half Retrofit Completion Goal : 2010 CLOSURE MITIGATION businesses of the Olympic Peninsula and a gateway for visitors Our estimate is currently $11.8 million. The costs to implement the plan’s transportation PLAN HISTORY coming to experience the wonders of the region. options, including the water shuttle service, park and ride lots and transportation Q. Where is the bridge? Since 1997, community members from both connections, contributed to the increased budget estimate. the Olympic and Kitsap Peninsulas, the A. The Hood Canal Bridge is located The project is looking for ways to meet the $10 million budget through: 1) Evaluating the water Peninsula Regional Transportation and Planning shuttle service level; 2) Administering the water shuttle dock construction contract. WSDOT between Kitsap and Jefferson counties Organization (PRTPO) and Washington State will continue refining the budget numbers when the water shuttle service company is selected. at the mouth of the Hood Canal. Department of Transportation worked together Q.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping and Monitoring Bluff Erosion with Boat-Based LIDAR and the Development of A
    Mapping and Monitoring Bluff Erosion with Boat-based LIDAR and the Development of a Sediment Budget and Erosion Model for the Elwha and Dungeness Littoral Cells, Clallam County, Washington GEORGE M. KAMINSKY HEATHER M. BARON AMANDA HACKING DIANA McCANDLESS Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Monitoring & Analysis Program DAVID S. PARKS Washington State Department of Natural Resources 1 This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement PC00J29801 to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife contract number 12-1119 and sponsored by Coastal Watershed Institute. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 2 ABSTRACT The spatial distribution and temporal variability of retreat rates of coastal bluffs composed of unconsolidated glacial deposits are of intense interest to landowners who occupy bluff-top properties as well as coastal resource managers who are responsible for protecting marine habitats such as forage fish spawning beaches dependent on bluff-derived sediments. Assessment of the bluff retreat and associated sediment volumes contributed to the nearshore over time is the first step toward development of a coastal sediment budget for bluff-backed beaches. This project develops and applies a boat-based LiDAR system for mapping and monitoring bluff erosion patterns from June 2012 to August 2013 to augment traditional data sources including aerial photography (1939 and 2001), GPS-based beach profile data (2010-2013), and airborne LiDAR (2001 and 2012). These data are analyzed in context to determine alongshore rates of bluff retreat and associated volume change for the Elwha and Dungeness littoral cells in Clallam County, Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary and Anticipated Responses to Elwha River Dam Removal 9 by Guy Gelfenbaum, Jeffrey J
    Chapter Summary and Anticipated Responses to Elwha River Dam Removal 9 By Guy Gelfenbaum, Jeffrey J. Duda, and Jonathan A. Warrick Abstract Starting in September 2011, the removal low nutrient concentrations in the river of two large dams on the Elwha River will waters, and coastal erosion that has begin an unprecedented river restoration accelerated markedly with time. During project because of the size of the dams, and after the removal of these dams, the volume of sediment released, the the Elwha River and its ecosystems will pristine watershed upstream of the dam be altered by a renewal of sediment sites, and the potential for renewing discharge downstream of the dams and salmon populations. Ecosystem studies a reintroduction of salmon spawning of the Elwha watershed indicate that the upstream of the dams. This chapter effects of almost 100 years of damming summarizes the pre-dam and current state are measurable and of consequence. of the river and its coastal ecosystems, These effects include smaller spawning and describes the likely outcomes of salmon populations, massive sediment river restoration on the Elwha River retention behind the dams, coarsening ecosystems. of the riverbed downstream of the dams, Chapter 19 250 Coastal Habitats of the Elwha River, Washington—Biological and Physical Patterns and Processes Prior to Dam Removal Introduction A. 125° 123° 49° The removal of two large dams on the Elwha River presents an opportunity to restore Str ait o Salish Sea natural fluvial processes to a mostly pristine f Ju an deFuca watershed and rebuild iconic salmon runs. fig. B 48° Glines After removal of the dams, salmon populations Elwha Canyon Dam are expected to increase dramatically over PACIFIC Dam their present numbers (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Hood Canal Bridge East-Half Replacement Closure Mitigation Plan – Preferred Options
    Hood Canal Bridge East-Half Replacement Closure Mitigation Plan – Preferred Options February 2000 Washington State Department of Transportation Hood Canal Bridge Replacement Project Committees Stakeholder's Committee Advisory Committee (HCBRSC) (HCBRAC) Gary Demich, Chair Dan DiGuilio, Chair Washington State Department of Transportation--Olympic Region Clallam Transit John Law Bruce Laurie City of Bremerton Jefferson County Public Works Department Martha Ireland Curtis Stacey Clallam County Jefferson Transit Bob Smith Chuck Shank Clallam County Kitsap County Public Works Julie Garrison John Clauson & Bob Ferguson Jefferson County Emergency Services Kitsap Transit Melanie Bozak & Jeff Hamm Bill Bullock Jefferson Transit Mason County Public Works Chris Endresen Doug Parrish Kitsap County Parrish Trucking Wendy Clark Gary Kenworthy Kitsap Transit City of Port Angeles Mary Jo Cady Brad Collins Mason County Port Angeles Public Works Ken Miller & David VanderPol Ken Attebery Oak Harbor Freight Lines Port of Bremerton Harry Fulton Phil Dorn Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Port Gamble Development Authority Forrest Rambo & David Timmons Herb Beck & Larry Crockett Port Townsend Port of Port Townsend Tim Caldwell Jim Bunger Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce Puget Sound Transfer & Storage Dan Eckstein Janet Thornbrue US Navy City of Shelton Terry McCarthy Amity Trowbridge Washington State Ferries Washington State Department of Transportation--Olympic Region Bob Jones Washington State Department of Transportation--Planning Ray Deardorf Washington State Ferries Jack Harmon Victoria Express Ferry Hood Canal Bridge East-Half Replacement Closure Mitigation Plan – Preferred Options February 2000 Our mission is to identify and prioritize options within funding limits that will lessen the impact to users of the Hood Canal Bridge during the East-Half Replacement Project.
    [Show full text]
  • News from Volume 36, Issue 1 January 2015 Wakefield Contributes Patsey Family Collection
    Newsfrom Volume 36, Issue 1 January 2015 Wakefield Contributes Patsey Family Collection The eldest man from the Patsey clan, George Wakefield, recently came into Blyn to record an oral history of his memories of growing up on the Patsey property in Port Hadlock owned by his great-grandparents, Young and Lucy Patsey. George was born in February 27, 1933 to Gertrude Patsey and John Malia Wakefield. Wakefield was an Englishman who had come cross- country from Maine. There are many members of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe who descend from the Old Patsey (Twana name Shubald), who died in 1911 and was thought to be the last full-blooded Georgia and George Wakefield member of the Twana (Skokomish) Tribe. Old Patsey and his wife Jennie were the parents of Young Patsey, born at Seabeck in 1854, where both Old and Young worked at the mill there. Young married Lucy Dexter, the daughter of Old Dexter from Jamestown. The family moved to Port Hadlock in 1887 when the Seabeck mill burned down, and both father and son began working at the Washington Mill in Hadlock. The Patseys lived in Port Hadlock, on land next door to the Old Alcohol Plant, near the present day Port Hadlock Marina. The Patsey’s next door neighbors were the family of the Prince of (Continued on page 2) Patsey Family Collection 1, 2 Funding Secured for Dungeness River Projects 11 Dr. Locke to Join Clinic; Tribe to Connect to City of Library Corner 12 Sequim Wastewater Utility 3 Obama Commits to Native American Youth; January Message from our Tribal Chair/CEO 4, 5 Elders Luncheon
    [Show full text]